Hi!
I am forwarding this message to the list because this deals with an
interesting issues: Girls being taught at an early age to care more about how
they look then about who they are!
What kind of woman will they grow up to be? More fashion models - yikes - we
need more woman activists for the Earth and the animals - not more woman
walking advertisements for vanity!
Instead of this program - why not a program to teach the girls to buy more
organic clothing! Anyone interested in presenting that kind of program to
the Girl Scouts?
Peace!
Angela
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Commercial Alert November 16, 1998
To subscribe to Commercial Alert send the message:
subscribe commercial-alert your name
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: For More Information Contact:
Monday, November 16, 1998 Gary Ruskin (202) 296-2787
Nader, Commercial Alert Urge Girl Scouts to Drop Program That Promotes
Shopping, Fashion
Ralph Nader deplored the way that the Girl Scouts of the USA is
taking part in a nationwide project with Limited Too which fosters the
obsession with looks, fashion and consumerism which are the source of so
much emotional and financial pain.
The "Fashion Adventure" project with Limited Too encourages girls
to shop, try on clothes, and model them in front of others. Limited Too,
with over 300 stores, is the largest retail clothing chain targeting young
girls. Nader called on Girl Scouts National President Elinor Ferdon to
stop the three year old "Fashion Adventure" project.
"The Girl Scouts do not exist to deliver a captive group of
impressionable girls to the corporate marketeers of the land," Nader said.
The Girl Scouts of the USA is the largest voluntary organization
for girls in the world. According to the Girl Scouts, "The purpose of
Girl Scouting is to inspire girls with the highest ideals of character,
conduct, patriotism and service that they may become happy and resourceful
citizens."
"We hope that the Girl Scouts will return to their purpose, and
teach girls that they will be judged by their merit and skills, and that
they're much more important than what they buy or wear or how products
make them look," Nader said.
"If the Girl Scouts were teaching how to deal with the
manipulations of the commercial culture -- the way it fosters obsessive
body image for example -- that would be one thing," said Gary Ruskin,
director of Commercial Alert. "But they aren't arming girls against the
wolves. They are delivering them to the wolves."
"Why is the Girl Scouts lending the legitimacy of its name to
corporate selling campaigns?" Nader asked.
Girl Scouts earn "G.S. Fashion Adventure" patches for
participating in the program, which includes "learning how and where
clothes are assembled, what the design process entails, and how retailing
works," according to the Girl Scouts. Girls are also given 15% discount
coupons from Limited Too.
Peggy Charren, founder of Action for Children's Television, called
the Fashion Adventure program "nauseating" and a "pure and simple sales
pitch under the auspices of the Girl Scouts" in an August 17 Wall Street
Journal article. According to the article, the Girl Scouts do not profit
from marketing tie-ins.
The Wall Street Journal reported on how the Fashion Adventure
program affected one parent and her daughter. "Just what the girls learn
in the program surprised Laura Neal. Earlier in the year, her
eight-year-old daughter, Ellen, participated in the Fashion Adventure
Program in Decatur, Ga. The next day, Ms. Neal found herself accompanying
her daughter to the store, discount coupon in hand. Ellen went straight
to the real short shorts' and a risque' sheer blouse that she had tried on
during the program, Ms. Neal says. While Ms. Neal approves of the
informational part of the patch, she is also wary of the sudden change in
her daughter. She wasn't interested in clothes before,' Ms. Neal says. I
saw a flash before me of what it was going to be like as a teenager, and
it scared me.'"
Commercial Alert is a new project to help parents, children, and
communities defend themselves against harmful, immoral or intrusive
advertising and marketing, and the excesses of commercialism.
Commercial Alert's web address is
<http://www.essential.org/alert>.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 17 08:53:52 1998
From: sarah clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: new participant
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:10:32 -0500
I just subscribed to this mailing list as because I wanted a
forum to interact with other ecofeminists. Everything I have read since
I subscribed has been a bandy of Christianity.
My question is this: Why is there a fanatical Christian on this
list and why has there been so much debate over Christian themes? Just
feeling that you have a connection with the earth doesn't make you an
ecofeminist. I ask Ecolady, have you ever read any academic ecofem
literature? (Karen Warren, Vandana Shiva, Val Plumwood, Judith Plant,
Charlene Spretnak, etc., etc.). If you had then you would know that it
is precicely the PATRIARCHAL establishments like Christianity that have
been the systematic oppressors of women and nature.
I have been reading this list now for about a week. My feeling
is that if you want to spout Christian theology, I am sure that are
plenty of forums to do so. Please do not make an ecofeminist forum to
impose your god.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Nov 17 12:47:38 1998
by harborside.com with smtp (Exim 1.62 #3)
From: "Robinmcc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: petition for labeling of genetically engineered food
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:46:43 -0800
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, November 16, 1998 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: petition for labeling of genetically engineered food
>In a message dated 98-11-16 03:01:00 EST, you write:
>
><< www.safe-food.com >>
>
>Hi! Robin - I just tried downloading that page to sign the petition and it
>said host unknow. Is this the right URL? Do you have a hyperlink?
>
>Thanks!
>Angela
>
Sorry! the right URL is
http://www.safe-food.org/
apologies.
Robin
